the cambridge edition of the works of d. h. lawrence...

THECAMBRIDGE EDITION OF

THE WORKS OFD. H. LAWRENCE

www.cambridge.org© in this web service Cambridge University Press

Cambridge University Press978-0-521-47116-9 - The First and Second Lady Chatterley NovelsD. H. Lawrence Edited by Dieter Mehl and Christa JansohnFrontmatterMore information

http://www.cambridge.org/9780521471169

http://www.cambridge.org


THE WORKS OF D. H. LAWRENCE

EDITORIAL BOARD

GENERAL EDITORJames T. Boulton

M. H. BlackLindeth VaseyJohn Worthen






THE FIRST AND SECONDLADY CHATTERLEY NOVELS

D. H. LAWRENCE

EDITED BY

DIETER MEHLAND

CHRISTA JANSOHN

CAMBRIDGEUNIVERSITY PRESS






cambridge university press Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town,

Singapore, São Paulo, Delhi, Mexico City

Cambridge University PressThe Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 8ru, UK

Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York

www.cambridge.orgInformation on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521471169

This, the Cambridge Edition of the text of the two early versions of Lady Chatterley’s Lover is established from the original sources and first published in 1999, © the Estate of Frieda Lawrence Ravagli 1999. Introduction and notes © Cambridge University Press 1999. Permission to reproduce this text entire or in part, or to quote from it, can be granted only by the Literary Executor of the Estate, Laurence Pollinger Ltd, 18 Maddox Street, Mayfair, London w1r 0eu. Permission to reproduce the introduction and notes entire or in part should be requested from Cambridge University Press. Acknowledgement is made to William Heinemann Ltd in the UK and the Viking Press in the USA, who hold the exclusive book publication rights for the work as published (copy-right 1944, 1972) in their respective territories for the authorisation granted to Cambridge University Press through the Frieda Lawrence Ravagli Estate for use of the work as published in preparing the new scholarly text.

First published 1999First paperback edition 2002

A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library

isbn 978-0-521-47116-9 Hardbackisbn 978-0-521-00715-3 Paperback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence oraccuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in

this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is,or will remain, accurate or appropriate.






CONTENTS

General editor's preface

Acknowledgements

Chronology

Cue-titles

IntroductionThe 'novel in the Derbyshire coal-mining districts'1926-7: composition of the first two versionsPublicationReceptionTexts

THE FIRST AND SECONDLAD Y CHA TTERLE Y NO VELS

Version 1

page vii

ix

X

XV

xixxxi

xxiixxviii

xxxiXXXV

1

5Version 2 221

Appendix. The novel's geographical setting and the English Midlands 571

Explanatory notes 579

Textual apparatus 607Line^end hyphenation 687

A note on pounds, shillings and pence 689






GENERAL EDITOR'S PREFACE

D. H. Lawrence is one of the great writers of the twentieth century - yetthe texts of his writings, whether published during his lifetime or since,are, for the most part, textually corrupt. The extent of the corruption isremarkable; it can derive from every stage of composition and publication.We know from study of his MSS that Lawrence was a careful writer,though not rigidly consistent in matters of minor convention. We knowalso that he revised at every possible stage. Yet he rarely if ever comparedone stage with the previous one, and overlooked the errors of typists orcopyists. He was forced to accept, as most authors are, the often stringenthouse-styling of his printers, which overrode his punctuation and even hissentence-structure and paragraphing. He sometimes overlooked plausibleprinting errors. More important, as a professional author living by his pen,he had to accept, with more or less good will, stringent editing by apublisher's reader in his early days, and at all times the results of hispublishers' timidity. So the fear of Grundyish disapproval, or actual legalaction, led to bowdlerisation or censorship from the very beginning of hiscareer. Threats of libel suits produced other changes. Sometimes apublisher made more changes than he admitted to Lawrence. On a numberof occasions in dealing with American and British publishers Lawrenceproduced texts for both which were not identical. Then there wereextraordinary lapses like the occasion when a typist turned over two pagesof MS at once, and the result happened to make sense. This whole storycan be reconstructed from the introductions to the volumes in this edition;cumulatively they will form a history of Lawrence's writing career.

The Cambridge edition aims to provide texts which are as close as cannow be determined to those he would have wished to see printed. Theyhave been established by a rigorous collation of extant manuscripts andtypescripts, proofs and early printed versions; they restore the words,sentences, even whole pages omitted or falsified by editors or compositors;they are freed from printing-house conventions which were imposed onLawrence's style; and interference on the part of frightened publishers hasbeen eliminated. Far from doing violence to the texts Lawrence wouldhave wished to see published, editorial intervention is essential to recover

vii






viii General editor 's preface

them. Though we have to accept that some cannot now be recovered intheir entirety because early states have not survived, we must be glad thatso much evidence remains. Paradoxical as it may seem, the outcome of thisrecension will be texts which differ, often radically and certainly frequently,from those seen by the author himself.

Editors have adopted the principle that the most authoritative form of thetext is to be followed, even if this leads sometimes to a 'spoken' or a'manuscript' rather than a 'printed' style. We have not wanted to strip offone house-styling in order to impose another. Editorial discretion has beenallowed in order to regularise Lawrence's sometimes wayward spelling andpunctuation in accordance with his most frequent practice in a particulartext. A detailed record of these and other decisions on textual matters,together with the evidence on which they are based, will be found in thetextual apparatus or an occasional explanatory note. These give significantdeleted readings in manuscripts, typescripts and proofs; and printed variantsin forms of the text published in Lawrence's lifetime. We do not recordposthumous corruptions, except where first publication was posthumous.

In each volume, the editor's introduction relates the contents toLawrence's life and to his other writings; it gives the history of compositionof the text in some detail, for its intrinsic interest, and because this historyis essential to the statement of editorial principles followed. It provides anaccount of publication and reception which will be found to contain a gooddeal of hitherto unknown information. Where appropriate, appendixesmake available extended draft manuscript readings of significance, orimportant material, sometimes unpublished, associated with a particularwork.

Though Lawrence is a twentieth-century writer and in many respectsremains our contemporary, the idiom of his day is not invariably intelligiblenow, especially to the many readers who are not native speakers of BritishEnglish. His use of dialect is another difficulty, and further barriers to fullunderstanding are created by now obscure literary, historical, political orother references and allusions. On these occasions explanatory notes or adialect glossary is supplied by the editor; it is assumed that the reader hasaccess to a good general dictionary and that the editor need not glosswords or expressions that may be found in it. Where Lawrence's letters arequoted in editorial matter, the reader should assume that his manuscript isalone the source of eccentricities of phrase or spelling. An edition of theletters is still in course of publication: for this reason only the date andrecipient of a letter will be given if it has so far been printed in theCambridge edition.






ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Throughout our work on this edition we have profited from the experience,the sane judgement, practical help and unstinting friendly generosity ofMichael Black, James Boulton, Lindeth Vasey and John Worthen. We havegreatly profited from the extensive work done on the text of LadyChatterley 's Lover by Michael Squires.

We also wish to thank the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Centerat the University of Texas, Austin, for making freely available the manu-scripts of the three versions on several research visits and for awarding anAndrew W. Mellon Foundation Research Fellowship to Christa Jansohn.Cathy Henderson and Pat Fox were especially helpful. We are also bothgrateful to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for several travel grants.Among many friends and colleagues who supported us with advice andencouragement at various stages we should like to name Paul Eggert, WilliHirdt, Mark Kinkead-Weekes, the late Warren Roberts and Stefan Wild.The work of checking and correcting the text and notes was made easier bythe cheerful help of Oliver GroB, Mark-Sven Kopka, Julia Kiihn and AxelStahler.

D.M.April 1998 C.J.

IX






CHRONOLOGY

i i September 1885September 1898-July 1901Winter 1901-2October 1902-1908

7 December 1907

October 1908

November 19093 December 1910

9 December 191019 January 1911

19 November 1911

early March 1912

23 May 1912September 1912-March 1913February 191329 May 1913June-August 1913August 1913-June 19141 April 1914

July 1914-December 1915

13 July 191426 November 191430 September 1915

Born in Eastwood, NottinghamshirePupil at Nottingham High SchoolFirst attack of pneumoniaPupil teacher; student at UniversityCollege, NottinghamFirst publication: 'A Prelude', inNottinghamshire GuardianAppointed as teacher at Davidson RoadSchool, CroydonPublishes five poems in English ReviewEngagement to Louie Burrows; brokenoff on 4 February 1912Death of his mother, Lydia LawrenceThe White Peacock published in NewYork (20 January in London)111 with pneumonia; resigns histeaching post on 28 February 1912Meets Frieda Weekley; they elope toMetz and then to Germany on 3 MayThe TrespasserAt Gargnano, Lago di Garda, ItalyLove Poems and OthersSons and LoversIn EnglandIn Germany, Switzerland and ItalyThe Widowing of Mrs. Holroyd (NewYork)In London, Buckinghamshire andSussexMarries Frieda Weekley in LondonThe Prussian Officer and Other StoriesThe Rainbow; suppressed by courtorder on 13 November






Chronology XI

June 1916July 191615 October 1917

October 1917-November 191926 November 1917October 1918November 1919-February 192220 November 1919May 19209 November 1920

25 November 192010 May 1921

12 December 1921March-August 192214 April 1922September 1922-March 192323 October 192224 October 192222 March 1923

March-November 192327 August 1923

September 19239 October 1923December 1923-March 1924March 1924-September 192528 August 1924

10 September 1924

14 May 1925September 1925-April 19267 December 1925

21 January 1926

Twilight in ItalyAmovesAfter twenty-one months' residence inCornwall, ordered to leave by militaryauthoritiesIn London, Berkshire and DerbyshireLook! We Have Come Through!New PoemsTo Italy, then Capri and SicilyBayTouch and GoPrivate publication of Women in Love(New York)The Lost GirlPsychoanalysis and the Unconscious(New York)Sea and Sardinia (New York)In Ceylon and AustraliaAaron's Rod (New York)In New MexicoFantasia of the Unconscious (New York)England, My England (New York)The Ladybird, The Fox, The Captain'sDollIn Mexico and USAStudies in Classic American Literature(New York)KangarooBirds, Beasts and Flowers (New York)In England, France and GermanyIn New Mexico and MexicoThe Boy in the Bush (with MollieSkinner)Death of his father, John ArthurLawrenceSt. Mawr together with The PrincessIn England and, mainly, ItalyReflections on the Death of a Porcupine(Philadelphia)The Plumed Serpent






Xll Chronology

25 March 1926May 1926

12 July 192630 July 192613 September 1926

14-16 September 1926

4 October 1926c. 22 October 1926

26 October 192627 October 1926

24 November 1926c. 25-30 November 1926c. 1 December 1926-by 25February 1927

6 December 19269 January 1927

25 February 1927

c. 3 ~i 1 April 1927

27 May 1927

June 1927July 19274 August -19 October 192720 October 192717 November 1927c. 26 November 1927-8 January192820 January-5 March 1928

DavidGoes from Spotorno to Florence, rentsVilla Mirenda nearbyTo Baden-BadenTo London, Scotland and LincolnshireTo his sister, Emily King, inNottingham (Frieda to London)With his sister Ada Clarke in Ripley(makes final visit to Eastwood)At Villa MirendaStarts version 1 of Lady Chatterley 'sLoverReaches p. 41 of version 1'I am working at a story - shortish -don't feel like a long effort''hope to break it off quite soon'Finishes version 1Writes version 2 of Lady Chatterley'sLover: 'not sure' whetherto publish it'Novel goes nicely''I'm slowly pegging at a novel''I've done all I'm going to do of mynovel for the time being''Etruscan' tour with Earl Brewster;returns to Villa MirendaHas decided not to publish version 2 ofLady Chatterley 's Lover 'this year'Mornings in MexicoSuffers tubercular haemorrhageConvalesces in Austria and GermanyAt Villa MirendaMeets Norman Douglas, Michael Aden(and probably Pino Orioli) in FlorenceWrites version 3 of Lady Chatterley'sLoverAt Les Diablerets, Switzerland;corrects typescripts of LadyChatterley's Lover (version 3) andexpurgates duplicate copies






Chronology Xlll

5 March 1928

7 March 19281 April 1928

2 April 192816 April 192824 April 1928

24 May 1928

31 May 19284 June 192810 June-1 October 192828 June 1928

July 1928

September 192817 November 1928-11 March192922 June-22 September 1929

July 1929

September 19291 October 1929-March 19302 March 1930mid 1930

February 1932

10 April 1944

29 May 1944

Mails expurgated typescripts to MartinSeeker and Alfred KnopfAt Villa MirendaOrioli delivers first batch of proofs ofLady Chatterley 's LoverHas corrected forty-one pagesFirst order from USA arrivesHas done 'rather more than half ofproofsThe Woman Who Rode Away and OtherStoriesReceives finally 'the last of the proofs''Finished the proofs of Lady CTo Switzerland and then Baden-BadenReceives copy of Lady Chatterley'sLoverLady Chatterley's Lover privatelypublished (Florence)Collected PoemsAt Bandol, France

To Florence, is ill again; to Germanyon 17 JulyExhibition of paintings in Londonraided by police; Pansies (manuscriptearlier seized in the mail)The Escaped Cock (Paris)At Bandol and then VenceDies at Vence, Alpes Maritimes, FranceLondon edition of Lady Chatterley *sLover publishedSeeker issues authorised expurgatededition of Lady Chatterley ys Lover(version 3); Knopf issues Americanimpression in SeptemberThe First Lady Chatterley published byDial Press, New YorkThe First Lady Chatterley declaredobscene; decision reversed on 1November






XIV

June 1954

4 May 1959

16 August i960

20 October-2 November i960

29 August 1972

Chronology

Le Tre Lady Chatterley (the threeversions of Lady Chatterley ys Lover)published by Mondadori (Verona)Grove Press publishes unexpurgatedtext of Lady Chatterley's Lover (version3) in New York (impounded by USPost Office)Penguin Books publishes unexpurgatedtext of Lady Chatterley's Lover (version3) in EnglandTrial of Penguin edition: prosecutionfailsThe First Lady Chatterley and JohnThomas and Lady Jane published byWilliam Heinemann, London; JohnThomas and Lady Jane published by theViking Press, New York






CUE-TITLES

A. Manuscript locationsUT University of Texas at Austin

B. Printed works(The place of publication, here and throughout, is London unless otherwise stated.)iLC

2LC

LCL

Britton

Letters, i.

Letters, ii.

Letters, iii.

Letters, iv.

Letters, v.

Letters, vi.

Lady Chatterley }s Lover. Version i: The First LadyChatterley. New York: Dial Press, 1944.Lady Chatterley's Lover. Version 2: John Thomasand Lady Jane. London: Heinemann, and NewYork: Viking Press, 1972.D. H. Lawrence. Lady Chatterley's Lover, ed.Michael Squires Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1993.Derek Britton. Lady Chatterley. The Making of theNovel. Unwin Hyman, 1988.James T. Boulton, ed. The Letters ofD. H.Lawrence. Volume 1. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1979.George J. Zytaruk and James T. Boulton, eds. TheLetters ofD. H. Lawrence. Volume 11. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1981.James T. Boulton and Andrew Robertson, eds. TheLetters ofD. H. Lawrence. Volume in. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1984.Warren Roberts, James T. Boulton and ElizabethMansfield, eds. The Letters ofD. H. Lawrence.Volume iv. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1987.James T. Boulton and Lindeth Vasey, eds. TheLetters ofD. H. Lawrence. Volume v. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1989.James T. Boulton and Margaret H. Boulton withGerald M. Lacy, eds. The Letters ofD. H.

xv






xvi Cue-titles

Lawrence. Volume vi. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1991.

Letters, vii. Keith Sagar and James T. Boulton, eds. The LettersofD. H. Lawrence. Volume vn. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1993.

OED2 J. A. Simpson and E. S. C. Weiner, eds. The OxfordEnglish Dictionary. 2nd edn. 20 volumes. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1989.

Phoenix Edward D. McDonald, ed. Phoenix: ThePosthumous Papers ofD. H. Lawrence. New York:Viking Press, 1936.

Phoenix II Warren Roberts and Harry T. Moore, eds. PhoenixII: Uncollectedy Unpublished, and Other Prose Worksby D. H. Lawrence. New York: Viking Press, 1970.

Roberts Warren Roberts. A Bibliography ofD. H. Lawrence.2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1982.






^Jt ^ M , / 4 ^ 4 ^ / 4 & i e *£**, 4*&.; %

i Manuscript of first version, p.






^3^t :

2 Manuscript of second version, p. i






INTRODUCTION






INTRODUCTION

The 'novel in the Derbyshire coal-mining districts'

In September 1926 D. H. Lawrence paid what was to be his final visit tothe Midlands and to his home-town, Eastwood, before returning to Italyand to the Villa Mirenda near Florence, which he and Frieda had rented inMay for a year and which became their home for the next two years. Theyhad left Italy early in July, visited Frieda's mother in Baden-Baden, spent amonth in London (Lawrence touring in Scotland part of the time) and afortnight on the Lincolnshire sea-coast and then returned to London foranother two weeks. On the way to London, Lawrence stopped for two dayswith his sister, Ada Clarke, in Ripley, Derbyshire, and - while there - alsowent to Eastwood for a day. During his stay in the Midlands, he was mostvividly impressed and disturbed by the miners' strike in Derbyshire andNottinghamshire, which had been going on for five months and had led toa general mood of social unrest. It appeared to him 'one of the greatestdisasters that has ever happened to England', as he wrote to Ada Clarkeabout three weeks after his return to Italy. Earlier, while still in England,he had written to the painter Millicent Beveridge, with whom he hadstayed in Inverness, that 'It seems, for the first time as far as I know it, tohave made the miners really class-conscious and full of resentment.'1

On the day Lawrence spent at Eastwood (14 September 1926), he took along walk with his old friend Willie Hopkin, revisiting many haunts of hisboyhood and adolescence and evidently refreshing his memory of places hehad used in his earlier fiction and was to use once more in his last novel,Lady Chatterley's Lover.2 The first version was begun very soon after hisreturn to the Villa Mirenda on 4 October.

1 Letters, v. 565 and 533 (subsequent references to Letters will usually be given in brackets inthe text). See Britton 131-9 for details of the strike and the effects of the coal dispute.DHL's impressions of the strike and of Eastwood are recorded in the essay 'Return toBestwood', Phoenix II257-66.

2 William Edward Hopkin (1862—1951), an active socialist, first a colliery and then a postoffice clerk, was a leading member of the Congregational Literary Society. He is portrayedas Lewie Goddard in Mr Noon, ed. Lindeth Vasey (1920-1; Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1984) and as Willie Houghton in Touch and Go (1920; Cambridge:

xxi






xxii Introduction

1926-7: composition of the first two versions3

Most of the evidence for the dating of the two early versions of LadyChatterley's Lover comes from Lawrence's letters. They tell us roughlywhen he began writing his new work and when he laid it aside ascompleted for the time being. However, during this period of composition,Lawrence never distinguished between the first and the second versions; itis therefore difficult to be certain about much of the dating of the twoextant manuscripts, in particular the point at which the first version wascompleted and the second begun. However, a number of circumstantialreasons make it possible to give a fairly accurate account of the novel'sgenesis.

During the first two weeks at the Villa Mirenda, Lawrence seems tohave done very little except go for walks, visit or receive friends, writeletters and get settled. The weather was at first very warm, 'almost too hot'(v. 552), the grape harvest just finished and he did not feel inclined to work'at anything in particular' (v. 555). On 16 October he sent the music he hadwritten for his play, David^ to the theatre director Robert Atkins, who wasplanning a London production. Parts of Lawrence's score had been draftedby him on the first five pages of the same note-book in which, startingfrom the other end, he wrote the first half of Lady Chatterley's Lover(version i).4 Three letters Lawrence wrote on 18 October 1926 show thathe had not yet seriously started writing: to his sister-in-law, Else Jaffe, heconfessed, 'I feel I'll never write another novel' (v. 559), and he told hisfriend, the artist Dorothy Brett, as well as his childhood neighbourGertrude Cooper, that he did 'very little work' (v. 559-60). On 22 Octoberthere was a visit from the novelist Aldous Huxley, which makes it unlikelythat the first stint of the novel was written on that day.

The first clear mention of the new book comes on 27 October 1926when Lawrence wrote to Martin Seeker: 'I am working at a story -

Cambridge University Press, forthcoming). See Britton 104-28 for an account of the walkwith Hopkin, based mainly on Hopkin's own memories recorded in W. E. Hopkin, 'D. H.Lawrence's Last Visit Home', Nottingham Journal, 11 September 1942.

3 Version 1 (hereafter iLC) and version 2 (hereafter 2LC).4 This does not necessarily provide us with a precise date for the actual beginning, because

Lawrence may already have started on the novel when he reversed the note-book to draftthe music for David. The layout of printed lines, with the larger margin at the top of thepage, suggests that he used what he considered the back of the note-book for the music, butone cannot be certain. It was not the first time he had used note-books in this way. See TheWoman Who Rode Away and Other Stories\ ed. Dieter Mehl and Christa Jansohn (Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), PP- xxii-xxiv, for a similar, though morecomplicated, instance.






Introduction xxiii

shortish - don't feel like a long effort. - Haven't seen anybody butHuxleys and Orioli . . . ' (v. 563). It seems certain that on 26 October 1926he had already written as far as p. 41 of the first version because, on thatpage of the autograph manuscript, he wrote: 'Smudges made by John, thedog, near the stream behind San Polo Mosciano! 26 Oct 1926.'5 This doesnot allow us to fix a precise date for the novel's beginning, but it makes adate at some time between 18 and 22 October most likely.6

First hints of the novel's 'impropriety', as well as of its relative brevity,begin to occur from about three weeks later in letters to his Britishpublisher Martin Seeker, and to Brett. On 15 November, Lawrence toldSeeker: 'I have begun a novel in the Derbyshire coal-mining districts -already rather improper. The gods alone know where it will end - if they'llhelp me out with it', and on the 23rd: 'The novel goes pretty well - isalready very improper - and will apparently be quite short' (v. 576, 581). Aday later, Lawrence wrote to Dorothy Brett: 'I'm doing a little novel - inthe Midlands, in England - I hope to break it off quite soon, keep it quiteshort' (v. 584). He probably completed work on the manuscript between 25and 30 November.7

These early references suggest that Lady Chatterley's Lover was origin-ally conceived as a novella rather than as a full-length novel, and this isconfirmed by the text's lack of chapter-divisions in version 1. There istherefore some reason to assume, though no definite evidence, that, whenLawrence told Seeker on 6 December 1926 that the 'Novel goes nicely - sodoes my Boccaccio picture!!' (v. 596), he had already started on the second

5 See Britton 178 and n. 17, LCL 4 and n. 3. See also LCL xx—xxii. The smudge is stillclearly visible.

6 There is, however, no evidence that DHL worked on the manuscript on each of the days18-26 October. The manuscript of the first version (Roberts Ei86a, hereafter iLC MS) andof the second (Roberts Ei86b, hereafter 2LC MS), is located at UT. Squires (LCL xx-xxi)gives lists of 'breaks' in the two manuscripts and believes they can be used for dating thestages of composition. On this basis he assumes that on the day DHL made the note on p.41, he had completed four days' work on the novel and that he 'probably started writingfour days before the 26th'. Our own examination of the manuscripts has made us lessconfident and has not in all cases led to the same conclusions. Some 'breaks' are more'certain' than others, but there is no evidence that all of them mark the start of a new day'sstint. They may often just as well indicate a change in DHL's writing position, having beenstopped by a relatively brief interruption (e.g. a meal or a visitor), or, even more likely, anew filling of the pen, especially when these 'breaks' occur in the middle of a sentence. See'Texts', below. Squires's account of the novel's genesis, for the most part, however, agreeswell enough with all the other evidence.

7 See LCL xxi; Squires's attempt at an exact calculation remains speculative, but our study ofthe manuscript supports his conclusion that it took Lawrence about five weeks to write thefirst version.






xxiv Introduction

draft and that all subsequent references to the book's progress are to thesecond version.

Analysis of the two autograph manuscripts suggests very strongly thatLawrence was revising version i and rewriting it as version 2 almostsimultaneously and as soon as he had finished version 1. One clear instanceis the close correspondence between the description of Connie's room closeto the end of version 1 (pp. 215-16) and the very similar passage at thebeginning of the second chapter of version 2, transferred practicallyunaltered from its original place to the beginning of the novel. Thehandwriting also suggests a very close relationship between the two manu-scripts at this place.8 Some major interlinear revisions near the beginningof version 1 were made in the same dark ink used for the first pages ofversion 2, as if Lawrence had begun revising the manuscript of version 1and then decided to make a completely new start. The passage in version 1that had undergone such thorough revision was completely rewritten inversion 2 where it became part of the third chapter.9

The impression that a new beginning had probably been made is alsosupported by the letter Lawrence wrote on 12 December 1926 to theAmerican journalist Willard ('Spud') Johnson: 'I pretend to write a novel -scene in England - but am much more of a Maestro painting a picture ofBoccaccio's story of the nuns who find their gardener asleep in the gardenon a hot afternoon . . . ' (v. 600). A week later, on 19 December, he toldBrett: 'Now it's a lovely sunny day, and I sat out in the wood this morning,working at my novel - which comes out of me slowly, and is good, I think,but a little too deep in bits - sort of bottomless pools.'10 This can be readas evidence that version 2 was composed more slowly and elaborately thanthe first, a view which is reinforced by the superior quality of the writingand the far heavier manuscript revision than in version 1.

On 12 January 1927 Lawrence wrote to Seeker: 'The new novel isgetting on. The world will probably call it very improper. It isn't really -but there you are' (v. 623); and on 20 January, to his old friend S. S.

8 Squires also speaks of 'the possibility of virtually continuous composition' and notes thatthe 'interlinear revisions in version 1 are inserted in the same black ink that appears on theopening pages of version 2' (LCL xxi).

9 See Textual apparatus for 9:29-12:33.10 Letters, v. 605. Cf. also the letter of 14 December to S. S. Koteliansky: 'Think I'll turn into

a painter, it costs one less, and probably would pay better than writing. Though for thatmatter I'm patiently doing a novel - scene in the Midlands' (v. 601). A similar statementoccurs three weeks later in a letter of 9 January 1927 to Nancy Pearn, manager of theMagazine Department, Curtis Brown (London): 'I'm slowly pegging at a novel, andpainting my 4th. picture, very smart this last. Painting is more fun and less soul-work thanwriting' (v. 620).






Introduction xxv

Koteliansky: 'The will-to-write seems to be departing from me: though Ido write my new novel in sudden intense whacks' (v. 627-8). The letterswhich follow describe the fast progress of the novel through February; onthe 6th, Lawrence informed the American painters, Earl and AchsahBrewster, with whom he had stayed in Ceylon (1922) that 'My new novelis three parts done, and is so absolutely improper, in words, and so reallygood, I hope, in spirit - that I don't know what's going to happen to it' (v.638); and on the 8th he wrote to Seeker:

It won't take me very long, I think, to finish the novel; so it won't be too lengthy -80 to 90 thousand, I suppose. But you'll probably hate it. I want to call it LadyChatterley's Lover, nice and old-fashioned sounding. Do look up in Debrett orWho's-Who and see if there are any Chatterleys about, who might take offence. -It's what they'll call very improper - in fact, impossible to print. But they'll have totake it or leave it, I don't care. It's really, of course, very 'pure in heart.' But thewords are all used! Damn them anyhow, (v. 638)

A day later, in a letter to Brett, Lawrence repeated that he would soonreach the end of the novel; but as his letter to Seeker reveals, he wasalready beginning to have doubts whether it was really fit to be published:'I've nearly done my novel - shall let it lie and settle down a bit, before Ithink of having it typed' (v. 639). Finally, on 25 February, he wrote toNancy Pearn in London: 'I've done all I'm going to do of my novel for thetime being, so shall have a shot at a few little things. They keep me goingbest' (v. 647), and on 8 March he told Brett, with more inklings of thecoming difficulties over publication: 'I've done my novel - I like it - butit's so improper, according to the poor conventional fools, that it'll neverbe printed. And I will not cut it' (v. 651). A week later, on 15 March 1927,Lawrence announced to Seeker: 'I've finished my novel Lady Chatterley'sLover - not long - but about 80,000 I suppose - or ninety' (v. 655).

There is no doubt that all these statements refer to the second version,although Lawrence's estimate of the novel's length fits version 1 muchbetter: it has about 94,000 words, as against about 150,000 in version 2.The decisive proof comes from Lawrence's letter to Brett of 24 March,where he told her, 'my novel is done in the two best books you gave me,very neat and handsome' (vi. 23). This can apply only to the manuscript ofversion 2, consisting of two nicely bound books, whereas the two simplenote-books containing version 1 were bound only later. It is also clear thatthe emphasis in the letters from January 1927 on the novel's unprintableimpropriety must refer to version 2, even though hints of that tendencyhad appeared as early as the middle of the previous November.

Equally important is the fact that, after February 1927, Lawrence






xxvi Introduction

consistently refers to the novel as a completed work, though in need ofrevision.11 There is no reference in the letters, throughout spring, summerand autumn of 1927, to further work on the novel; indeed, Lawrence'stimetable and itinerary made it all but impossible that he had the leisure toproduce the second version during those months.

We can therefore be confident that Lawrence wrote the first two versionsof Lady Chatterley's Lover between October 1926 and February 1927 invirtually a single creative effort; that around about the end of Novemberand the first two weeks of December he finished version 1, only to startrewriting immediately; and that when he had completed version 2, he laidit aside, undecided what to do with it. Whenever, during the followingmonths, he referred to his novel, it was to version 2 which, for him, hadcompletely superseded his first draft.

From Lawrence's letters during February and March 1927 it appears thathe became increasingly reluctant to consider publication of the new novel oreven to have it typed.12 When he told Seeker about the book on 15 March,he added, 'It's verbally terribly improper - but I don't think I shall alter it.I'll send it you one of these days - am not keen, somehow, on letting it goout. What's the good of publishing things!' (v. 655). He was evidentlysounding Seeker to discover whether he was eager to see the new novel. Noreply is extant,13 but it is likely that before Seeker even had a chance toreact or even to see the novel, Lawrence had decided not to proceed anyfurther. A week after his letter to Seeker he wrote to Nancy Pearn, 'TellSeeker not to do anything about Lady Chatterley's Lover. I must go over itagain - and am really not sure if I shall publish it - at least this year. And Ithink it is utterly unfit for serialising - they would call it indecent - thoughreally, it's most decent. But one day I'll send it you to have typed'.14 Thiswas not the end of Lawrence's agonising over the second version of thenovel. 'I'm in a quandary about my novel, Lady Chatterley 's Lover* he wroteto Nancy Pearn on 12 April, and again insisted on its being 'beautiful andtender'. He repeated his doubts about having it typed.15 On 29 April,

11 E.g. Letters, v. 647, 651, 655; vi. 21, 23, 29.12 See Letters, vi. 31, 41-2, 43, 45, 46, 74, 77.13 But see the letter of 12 April to Nancy Pearn, * Seeker wants me to send it him at once' (vi.

29).14 Letters, vi. 21. Tedlock took this as the 'first hint that Lawrence might rewrite the book'

and, mistakenly, dated the second version 'in the spring and summer of 1927'. See E. W.Tedlock, Jr, The Frieda Lawrence Collection of D. H. Lawrence Manuscripts. A DescriptiveBibliography (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1948), p. 23.

15 'I shrink very much even from having it typed. Probably the typist would want tointerfere—' {Letters, vi. 29). As subsequent events proved, his fears were justified. SeeSquires, LCL xxiv. To his old friend and later biographer, the writer Richard Aldington, he






Introduction xxvii

Lawrence once more mentioned the novel to Seeker: 'I've been thinkingabout Lady Chatterley's Lover - and think I'll get him typed in Londonbefore long, and let you have a copy, so that you can see how possible orimpossible he is' (vi. 45). However, four weeks later, on 27 May, heannounced his final decision to Seeker: 'No, I won't publish LadyChatterley's Lover this year - I've decided not to. But perhaps in the springnext year. - When I rouse myself I'll be sending along the MS to betyped.'16 There is some indication that Lawrence himself began typing thetext of version 2 at one point,17 but there is no reference to this in hiscorrespondence.

During Lawrence's absence from the Villa Mirenda in Austria andGermany, between 4 August and 19 October, the novel was left there andafterwards kept 'under lock and key' (vi. 196). When, in October andNovember 1927, Lawrence again gave some serious thought to the bookand, encouraged by the example of his two writer acquaintances, NormanDouglas and Michael Arlen,18 hit on the idea of private publication, it wasfor him the 'novel I wrote last winter' (vi. 182) and 'my last winter's novel'(vi. 223). Asking the advice of his English agent, Curtis Brown aboutprivate publication, Lawrence declared his determination 'to put it into theworld, as it stands' (vi. 222). Again, this can only mean version 2.

Exactly when he decided to rewrite the novel altogether, instead ofrevising version 2, remains a matter of speculation. On 8 December 1927he told Koteliansky: 'My novel I'm writing all over again' (vi. 233); it isclear that by this time the creation of the third and final version of thenovel had begun.19 It is also almost certain that when composing it he had

wrote on 28 April: 'I did a very nice novel - English Midlands — which they'll say ispornographic - and I feel tender about it - it's sort of tender - so I'm holding it back.Shan't give it to anybody this year anyhow' {Letters, vi. 43).

16 Letters, vi. 68. See also DHL's letter to Seeker of 13 April 1927 about the possibility ofAmerican publication by Alfred Knopf: 'I am to send the MS direct to New York, not toLondon. I shan't. I shall just let it lie here' {Letters, vi. 31). On 27 April he wrote toKoteliansky, 'I'm holding the MS. and shan't even have it typed, yet awhile. Seeker wantsit this year, but wont get it' (vi. 41-2) . On 17 August, from Villach in Carinthia, D H L toldSeeker that he had 'left the MS. of Lady Chatterley at the Mirenda - one day I'll show ityou privately. I want to write a continuation of it, later' (vi. 130). In an earlier letter to him(6 June) DHL had even talked of burning the manuscript ('that young woman may still goin the fire', vi. 77).

17 See below, pp. xxxvii-xxxviii.18 On Lawrence's association with George Norman Douglas (1868-1952) and the novelist

Michael Arlen (1895-1956; his original name was Dikran Kouyoumdjian), see Letters, vi.9, 222—5 a n d 241-2 .

19 Squires suggests that DHL may have started around 26 November (xxiii); this depends onthe assumption that he wrote a more or less equal number of pages each day which is by nomeans certain.






xxviii Introduction

the manuscript of version 2 in front of him, at least for many of the crucialepisodes. In the first chapter of version 3 he used a passage cancelled inversion 2 as the basis for the Dresden episode,20 and large sections weretaken over more or less unchanged into the final version, though mostlyrevised in detail. It is only in its last two chapters (three chapters inversion 2) that version 3 is completely independent of version 2.

Publication

During the hectic period of printing and distributing Lady Chatterley'sLover in its final version, Lawrence apparently never gave a thought to theearlier texts. It was not until a year after the publication of the finalversion, and after considerable difficulties with customs officials, publishersand booksellers, that he remembered his first version as much moreinnocent than the third, and considered publishing it as an alternative toexpurgating his final text. On 22 July 1929 he wrote to Pino Orioli, thebookseller who had published Lady Chatterley's Lover in Florence:

Suddenly I have the bright idea that the first version of Lady C. may be the rightone for Knopf and Seeker. I believe it has hardly any fucks or shits, and no addressto the penis, in fact hardly any of the root of the matter at all. You remember thefirst version is the one you had bound for Frieda, and it is in your flat. I wish youwould just glance through the so-called hot parts, and tell me how hot they are. I'msure they are hardly warm. And I'm sure I could expurgate the few flies out of thatvirgin ointment - whereas our Lady C. I cannot, absolutely cannot even begin toexpurgate, (vii. 383)21

This is Lawrence's first explicit reference to version 1 as a work in itsown right. The idea was not pursued in earnest, and it was not publisheduntil 1944, when much of the excitement over the book had died down.

20 See Textual apparatus; Dresden is not mentioned in version 2 after revision.21 T h e idea is repeated in a letter of 25 July 1929 to Laurence Edward Pollinger (1898-1976),

who worked in the firm of Curtis Brown and after 1958, in his own agency, representedD. H. Lawrence's Estate; this also shows that DHL himself recognised the existence ofthree versions of the novel and of their differences, although he does not seem to rememberthem very accurately:

I had the bright idea that perhaps we might print the first version of Lady C. as it stands.In my usual way, I wrote the whole novel, complete, three times. The first time is almostquite proper - but very much tamer than the second and third time - and a %ood dealdifferent - quite a different gamekeeper, for example - a little man of the people, merely ofthe people - 1 glanced at the MS, when I was in Florence - it is there, bound up complete,(vii. 391)

Like the letter to Orioli this clearly refers to the manuscript of iLQ which originallyconsisted of two exercise books (and some separate leaves), now bound up into one volumeafter composition.






Introduction xxix

On 17 January 1938, Frieda Lawrence, who had returned to Taos afterLawrence's death to live with Angelo Ravagli (owner of the Villa Mirenda),asked Ravagli (visiting Italy in 1938) to bring the manuscripts back withhim to the United States if he could possibly get them past the customsofficials, but to have copies made of the first two versions as a safetymeasure: 'Don't forget to have the two Mss. of Lady C. typed. Leave themat Savona and bring the originals. Also the book.'22 On 5 May shereminded him: 'I am worried about the Lady C's. If they were confiscated,it might be a great loss and yet you might get through easily. If you couldhave them typed, it would be better and yet it would have to be a person ofconfidence, somebody might tell. Surely Lawrence's handwriting is so clear,somebody Italian might do it.'23 The mission was successful and Friedawas able to negotiate with agents and publishers about publication. WillardHoughton, Assistant to the Director of the Laboratory of Anthropology inSanta Fe, acting for Frieda, had both versions typed and sent them toEsther Forbes, novelist and publicity director for Houghton-Mifflin, whowrote 'A Manuscript Report' for the Dial Press edition in which shepraised the first version as the work of 'a novelist - pure and simple' anddeplored the 'fact Lawrence took good work and ruined it'.24 FriedaLawrence authorised the publication and contributed a preface in whichshe declared this first version to be her own favourite: 'It seems as if thebook has at last come into its own.'25 The Dial Press edition of version 1was published in New York on 10 April 1944; according to the Publishers'Weekly of 8 April 1944, 10,000 copies were printed. The transcription ofthe text has a number of minor errors, and there is a minimum ofexpurgation: 'cunt' and 'fuck' and derivatives are replaced by 'c—t' and'f—' respectively (pp. 77, 108-n and 232). The novel was divided into 24chapters.26 An Australian reprint was published, probably in 1946, byPeter Huston in Sidney,27 and on p. 3 it is stated that 'This edition differsslightly from the original American version, published by Dial Press, Inc.,in that a few minor expurgations have been made in order to conform with

22 Frieda Lawrence: The Memoirs and Correspondence•, ed. E. W. Tedlock (Heinemann, 1961),p. 253. The typescripts made in Italy eventually reached the library of Laurence Pollinger.See Michael Squires, The Creation of 'Lady Chatterley fs Lover" (Baltimore and London:The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983), p. 200. See also Jay A. Gertzman, ADescriptive Bibliography of Lady Chatterley's Lover, With Essays Toward a PublishingHistory of the Novel (New York: Greenwood Press, 1989), pp. 211—36.

23 Frieda Lawrence: The Memoirs and Correspondencep, p. 255.24 *A Manuscript Report by Esther Forbes', The First Lady Chatterley (1944), pp. xv, xviii.25 'A Foreword by Frieda Lawrence', The First Lady Chatterley (1944), pp. v—xiii, vii.26 See Textual apparatus for the chapter divisions in A i .27 See Gertzman, Descriptive Bibliographyr, p. 218.






xxx Introduction

local requirements.' The expurgations are far more thorough than implied:interfering with the text in more than 20 places and reducing it by some15,000 words.

The first completely unexpurgated edition of version 1 was published byHeinemann in 1972, with a 'Publisher's Note' by Roland Gant, EditorialDirector at William Heinemann Ltd, explaining that the chapter divisionintroduced in the Dial edition had been removed and that 'through a line-by-line reading of the manuscript against the American printed edition,typist's and printer's errors have been set right and American spelling hasbeen changed back to Lawrence's own'.28 Frieda's preface to the 1944edition was reprinted unchanged. Most later reprints are based on thisedition.

The second version was first published, in an Italian translation by CarloIzzo, by Arnoldo Mondadori in Verona in June 1954; the volume alsocontained translations of the first and third versions. The first publicationof version 2 in English came in 1972, when Heinemann brought it out 'as acompanion'.29 The title John Thomas and Lady Jane was first suggested,'rather savagely', by Lady Juliette Huxley for version 3 of the novel;Lawrence seized on it with delight, used it as a subtitle on the publicityleaflets he drew up during the second week of March 1928,30 and con-tinued to use it in letters to his friends down to the time of the novel'spublication. He also used it on the actual order forms for the novel, but itdoes not appear as the title or subtitle for the published novel, nor does itappear in any edition published in his lifetime. On no occasion did DHLever use the title for version 2 of the novel. Roland Gant's use of it wastherefore neither justified nor authorised.

In his 'Publisher's Note' Gant explained that nearly twenty years earlier

28 D. H. Lawrence, The First Lady Chatterley {The first version of'Lady Chatterley ys Lover %with a foreword by Frieda Lawrence (Heinemann, 1972), p. vi.

29 Cf. Roland Gant's Note in The First Lady Chatterley (1972), p. vi. The second version waspublished under the title John Thomas and Lady Jane {the second version of 'LadyChatterley's Lover1) (Heinemann, 1972).

30 See Letters, vi. 3 1 3 - 1 6 , and see Squires, The Creation of'*Lady Chatterley's Lover\ p. 12,for a reproduction of the leaflet. On 13 March 1928, Lawrence wrote to his Taos friend,Mabel Dodge Luhan: 'Now I'm so busy with my novel. I want to call it " J o n n Thomasand Lady Jane" (John Thomas is one of the names for the penis, as probably you know):but have to submit to put this as a sub-title, and continue with Lady Chatterley fs Lover: forthe publisher's sake' (vi. 318). At the start of April, D H L apparently was told that he hadto leave the title out: T i l have to leave out " J o n n Thomas", shall I? What a pity! But it'stoo late to leave it from the leaflets' (vi. 352 -3 ) . After that, the title appears only in lettersto friends, more often than not as a joke or regretfully.






the cambridge edition of the works of d. h. lawrence...

Documents